DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
To show how out of kilter Jim DiEugenio is regarding certain matters in the JFK case, he actually seems to think that Wesley Frazier's mother (Essie Williams) is a prime/key witness who should have been questioned in the same depth that Wesley and Linnie Mae Randle were questioned.
That is typical of a conspiracy kook like Jimbo, though -- always latching on to chaff and ignoring the wheat field. DiEugenio is a master at harvesting chaff.
But we must always keep in mind that Jimbo is one of those rare and very strange conspiracy clowns who has decided to believe that Lee Oswald had NO LARGE PACKAGE AT ALL with him on the morning of November the 22nd.
Keep on truckin', Jimbo. Pretty soon I'm sure you'll find a way to pretend that LHO and Frazier didn't drive to the TSBD together AT ALL on 11/22/63. It was all made up by big fat liar Wesley--just like the paper bag. Right, Jimmy?
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
At a real trial, not the phony fiasco in London, Frazier would have been opened up like a clam by a skilled and knowledgeable lawyer who really knew this case. Opened up to the point that no one, except maybe you [DVP] and McAdams, would have beleived [sic] him.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Unbelievable.
DiEugenio gives new meaning to the word silly.
Ask 1,000 conspiracy theorists if they think Lee Oswald took a large package into the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63, and approximately 999 of them will say, "Yes, of course he did, but the bag was too short to hold LHO's rifle."
DiEugenio, of course, will never explain why the police forced Wes Frazier to say that a MAKE-BELIEVE bag had dimensions that were too short to house disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle C2766.
You'd think that if the bag was non-existent from the get-go, the crooked cops and Frazier (and Randle) would have made sure to say the make-believe bag was at least big enough to hold the object that was supposed to be inside that non-existent bag.
So, the cops were not only crooked beyond belief--they were also apparently dumber than dirt too. Go figure.
Keep on going, Jimbo. Your delusions are perpetually entertaining. Not to mention more hilarious than Jack Benny.
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
1. Davey, why did no one but Frazier see Oswald and his arm length sack enter the TSBD?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why would you expect anyone but Frazier to have seen this? And please don't bring up Jack Dougherty, because he admitted he wasn't paying any attention to Oswald when LHO entered the building on 11/22. He said he only saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye. Hardly a perfect witness for your "No Bag At All" purposes, Jimmy.
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
2. Davey, why did Shields say that Frazier told him he dropped off Oswald at the front of the TSBD that day? If so, then Frazier is lying about following him and seeing the sack under his arm.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mr. Shields is obviously wrong, Jimmy. But you want to believe Shields, vs. believing the person (Buell Frazier) who has always stuck to his story from Day 1 about all of the stuff he did on November 22nd, including the manner in which Oswald exited the car and picked up his package out of the back seat while Frazier was charging his battery in the distant employee parking lot.
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
3. Davey, why did Troy West say that Oswald never got any paper from him at the TSBD even when he was always at his counter? He even ate lunch there.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Just because Troy West didn't see Oswald take some paper and tape doesn't mean Oswald didn't take those items from West's work area. (I assume Troy had to go to the bathroom every now and then. That could very well be when Oswald stole the paper. It wouldn't have taken very long to swipe those items.)
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
4. Why did no one at the Paine household say they saw Oswald with his paper that night?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Probably because Lee was being careful and wasn't flaunting the paper for everyone to see. After all, he was going to use it to hide a rifle that he'd be using the next day in a Presidential assassination attempt. Stands to reason he wouldn't be waving the paper bag around for everybody to see.
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
5. Why were there no remnants [of] the paper found, or the tape, if Oswald prepared the sack that night?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Let me throw this same reasoning back in Jimbo's face with this question:
Why were there no bullets found from the various non-Oswald guns that you think were used to kill JFK?
To answer your #5 hunk of chaff specifically -- "Remnants" of the paper bag trimmings could very well have been deposited by Oswald in a garage (or kitchen) trash can on the night of November 21st, and Ruth Paine probably never would have noticed such snips of paper.
I suppose you think the cops should have searched through Ruth Paine's trash for "paper trimmings/remnants", eh Jim?
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
6. Why was the broken-down rifle not scratched as it would have had to have been if Frazier is telling the truth?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're kidding with this hunk of silliness, aren't you Jimbo?
Oswald's rifle WAS beat up and scratched and battered. Why do you think otherwise? Just look at the close-up color views of the rifle via the National Archives:
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
7. Why did Linnie Mae tell that x-ray vision story that is almost certainly false?
Now, can you imagine getting Frazier on the stand and cross-examining him with this material, and much more?
I would love to have him carry the disassembled rifle in a sack and walk the length of the courtroom a couple of times and then look at the parts.
I would also love to take the jury to the Frazier home. I would then have them stand, one by one, in the spot where Linnie was standing and ask them if they can see through the car port.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You CAN see through the carport. The slats in the carport wall are far enough apart to let lots of light in, and hence a person on the other side can be partially seen. Just look:
Your desperation to take the rifle out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands has reached fantastic and outrageous proportions, Jimbo.
You've got to have the police making up lies (particularly people like J.C. Day and Bob Studebaker, who each said they saw the paper bag lying in the Sniper's Nest after the assassination); you need Buell Frazier to be a liar about a whole bunch of stuff that he said he did and saw on November 22; you've got to have Linnie Mae Randle being a liar; and you've got to have both the Warren Commission and the HSCA being composed of a bunch of gullible goofs -- because BOTH of those official U.S. Government entities believed that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were telling the truth when they said they saw Oswald carrying a bulky brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.
Now, who should I believe -- All of the above people/Government organizations or James "Oswald Never Fired A Shot At Either JFK Or J.D. Tippit" DiEugenio?
Not exactly the toughest choice in the world, is it?
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
I believe now that the weight of the evidence should raise the strongest suspicions about [Buell Wesley] Frazier.
For recall, when Oswald was confronted by Fritz with the curtain rod story, he denied ever saying it to Frazier.
[...]
My argument is not that Oswald was lying or that he had found a new apartment.
My argument is that it is Frazier who is lying, because he was subborned.
And if Oswald brought only a small lunch bag to work that day, or intended on buying his lunch, there could be no argument at all about him bringing in a broken-down MC rifle. Which the evidence says that he never picked up.
[...]
I do know that Ruth Paine said she had heard of Frazier getting a job at the TSBD from LMR [Linnie Mae Randle]. This implies they knew each other, which is reasonable since they lived so close to each other. I think it was like a block away or so.
But as I said earlier, there has been little work done on the family in all these years. And so little on any connection to the Paines.
I think this is because so many researchers, like lemmings, bought into Frazier's story. (Including myself, I should add.)
[...]
It is all coming pouring out, like piercing a pus ball now.
Interesting about Montgomery's seeming contradiction about when he went up there and who ordered him to. Also interesting about Alyea saying there was no chicken lunch. Sylvia Meagher has some fun with the whole chicken lunch story also. (see pgs 39-41 of AAF [Accessories After The Fact])
Also, the diagram on the exhibit has a very hard time being matched to the sack Montgomery brought down.
This is an important point about just when the curtain rod story was brought forth by Frazier and when Oswald denied it and when others heard about it.
[...]
And of course, we will never know what Oswald actually said. So we will never know what he said about bringing a lunch, or how large his lunch bag was. ... According to Frazier, he did not.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Watching James DiEugenio (and other conspiracy kooks like him) attempting to rewrite the history of Buell Wesley Frazier, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the paper bag [CE142] is like watching a train wreck in action.
What an ugly sight indeed. Truly pathetic.
One of Jimbo's hilarious points made above is when he actually seems to be implying that the "paper bag" dotted line in Commission Exhibit No. 1302 is supposed to be perfectly drawn "to scale" to match the exact dimensions of CE142 (Oswald's gun-carrying paper sack).
Quite obviously, however, the Warren Commission didn't intend for the dotted line in CE1302 to be a to-the-inch representation of the size of Oswald's paper bag. It was drawn in merely to show the bag's GENERAL shape and outline and to indicate approximately where in the Sniper's Nest the bag was found by the police.
But Jim D. apparently thinks the dotted line can be used as an exacting measuring device for the bag. Hilarious! Jim is silly beyond belief. (And getting sillier too.)
And why in the world anyone would be surprised by the fact that the MURDERER (Oswald) denied the "curtain rod" story is a real howler. OF COURSE Oswald denied the curtain rod story. If he didn't deny the whole story, he'd have to explain to Fritz, et al, why the curtain rods completely disappeared after the assassination.
(Duh.)
As I've said several times in the past (and it's truer in 2010 than ever before) -- Jim DiEugenio doesn't care how many people he has to call liars in order to clean the skirts of double-murderer Lee Oswald.
In this discussion, the rotten liar is Buell Wesley Frazier. In other discussions, it's been Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, J. Will Fritz, Henry Wade, Patrick Dean, "The Troika" (Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles, and John McCloy), David Belin, Arlen Specter, J. Edgar Hoover, Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, Michael Baden, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Russell Fisher, Clay Shaw, Hugh Aynesworth, Dave Perry, Earl Warren, James Phelan, John Lattimer, John McAdams, Linnie Mae Randle, Charles Givens, Gerald Hill, the Dallas Police Department (as a whole), the FBI (as a whole), etc., etc., to conspiratorial infinity.
In DiEugenio's strange world of the JFK murder case, it's all about shifting the blame to somebody OTHER than the real killer. As long as Jimbo THINKS he can support his outlandishly ludicrous claim that every single person on my above list is a liar (and make no mistake--DiEugenio HAS come right out and called each one of the above persons [and dozens of others not listed] outright LIARS), he will continue to peddle the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.
And even THAT isn't enough for DiEugenio. Oh no. Because he also wants to paint sweet Lee Harvey as being innocent of shooting at General Edwin Walker too!
So, that adds still more liars to Jimbo's long list of liars, including the Warren Commission (as a unit) and the HSCA (as another unit) -- because those two Government committees declared Oswald guilty of shooting at General Walker [WCR p. 404 and HSCA Final Report p. 61].
Maybe DiEugenio should be given a new nickname -- "Blame Shifter Jimbo".
That moniker fits him quite nicely indeed.
David Von Pein
October 27—November 5, 2010
